I'd be more prepared to meet a clown if I were at a circus, and they were dressed up. But, I always meet them when my guard is down, and I'm not emotionally prepared for the clownage. For instance, today, when I went to register for my Lateral Entry classes at the local schmocal college. The lady told me I didn't have the prerequisite. I told her I found that I found that hard to believe since I have a BA and a MA. She told me that they didn't have my transcipts in my folder. I responded I brought them to the college in August for the class I'm enrolled in now, and although I couldn't account for where they were that I could verify I brought them. Then she told me she had no way of knowing if I'd attended the schools. I explained that I couldn't teach if I didn't have the degrees I was saying I had (and consequently wouldn't be involved in this conversation)-- they're prerequisites for my job. Call the school system for which I work. She told me to calm down while pointing her finger at me. I thanked her for making my decision easier.
So, I'm looking for a different school, which I needed to do all along. I just landed in this one because it's the closest and least expensive (well, money wise). It wasn't the height of my emotional maturity, but all my emotional maturity had already been spent on 7th grade drama.
I just made a date to run an ultra marathon with my cousin when he gets back from Iraq and I complete my certification. There's light at the end of the tunnel for both of us. At least he gets weapons. And, he offered for me to drive his car while he's away. I love my family-- there some of the few people that are insane enough to get me.
And, I'm going sailing on Saturday!! The forecast if for the mid 60s and partly cloudy. I saw R before school, and he asked if I wanted to crew. I responded, "Of course." It's going to be a 4 man crew. Being on the water mellows me-- the size of the lake (or ocean) helps put things in perspective. Furthermore, it's a reminder of how little control we have over anything really. And, it gives me distance from all the ticky tack annoying crap that innundates my daily existence. It functions a lot like art-- it reminds of wonder and fun and beauty and adventure.
And, I made a date with my brother for the Sinatra night with the Charlotte Pops on Friday. It's going to be a swanky, good time. Where does one eat before a "Sinatra" concert.
Blood Meridian is phenomenal, and guys are a pain in the ass.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
discussion board
So, I'm the jerk in my online course. Here's the proof:
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: 600 low-income African-American males, 400 infected with syphilis were monitored for 40 years. The purpose of the study was to examine the long-term affects of syphilis. The subjects of the study were 400 African American males, who were primarily poor sharecroppers. These men all had syphilis, but were unaware of it. They were also unaware of the true nature of the experiment. The most horrifying aspect of the experiment was that, even in the 1950's penicillin was proved to be effective at curing syphilis, the researchers did not treat the men's syphilis. They even prevented other doctors who saw the participants from treating the syphilis. As many as one hundred men may have died from complications of their untreated syphilis.
My response: Of course, research would be run differently now because we have a different anthropology! The research is unethical and cruel by today's standards. However, it's anachronistic to judge these researchers by today's standards. In their context African Americans were considered 3/5 of a person even if slavery had been repealed-- remember American history? In the researchers' minds, it wasn't too far off from animal testing (right or wrong). Have you studied any of the entire Social Purity Movement in the 19th and 20th centuries that happened in the US and the UK and colonies? This is not nearly as cruel as the studies British researchers did on Chinese and Indian prostitutes in Hong Kong and India. One must observe history within its context. The Victorian standards came with a heavy price. However, the closed race and gender of the study is remarkably advanced, albeit for the wrong reasons. It wasn't until the 1990s that medicine recognized the differences in male and female body systems-- that heart research needed to be performed on women as well.
Of course, I presume everybody who's horrified by this study buys nothing made in China or any other 2/3 world country that are known for such egregious human rights violations.
My response to another student's response: "Unethical" and "appalling" are extremely emotive words. Of course, one has a visceral reaction to this type of history. But, it is human nature after all, is it not? Look at the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Nazis, modern China. For most of history, medicine has caused more deaths than saved lives. One most consider the context.
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: 600 low-income African-American males, 400 infected with syphilis were monitored for 40 years. The purpose of the study was to examine the long-term affects of syphilis. The subjects of the study were 400 African American males, who were primarily poor sharecroppers. These men all had syphilis, but were unaware of it. They were also unaware of the true nature of the experiment. The most horrifying aspect of the experiment was that, even in the 1950's penicillin was proved to be effective at curing syphilis, the researchers did not treat the men's syphilis. They even prevented other doctors who saw the participants from treating the syphilis. As many as one hundred men may have died from complications of their untreated syphilis.
My response: Of course, research would be run differently now because we have a different anthropology! The research is unethical and cruel by today's standards. However, it's anachronistic to judge these researchers by today's standards. In their context African Americans were considered 3/5 of a person even if slavery had been repealed-- remember American history? In the researchers' minds, it wasn't too far off from animal testing (right or wrong). Have you studied any of the entire Social Purity Movement in the 19th and 20th centuries that happened in the US and the UK and colonies? This is not nearly as cruel as the studies British researchers did on Chinese and Indian prostitutes in Hong Kong and India. One must observe history within its context. The Victorian standards came with a heavy price. However, the closed race and gender of the study is remarkably advanced, albeit for the wrong reasons. It wasn't until the 1990s that medicine recognized the differences in male and female body systems-- that heart research needed to be performed on women as well.
Of course, I presume everybody who's horrified by this study buys nothing made in China or any other 2/3 world country that are known for such egregious human rights violations.
My response to another student's response: "Unethical" and "appalling" are extremely emotive words. Of course, one has a visceral reaction to this type of history. But, it is human nature after all, is it not? Look at the Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Nazis, modern China. For most of history, medicine has caused more deaths than saved lives. One most consider the context.
Thursday, November 12, 2009
another passed over ditty
Hebrews 7
Melchizedek is a fascinating, mysterious figure, a priest, who fits somewhere outside of expectation and protocol. We know very little details about his life, but the author of Hebrews uses him as an archetype for Christ’s role as high priest. Either author’s contemporaries were more familiar with Melchizedek than modern Bible readers, and a reference to him functioned as a reference to Abraham Lincoln in our culture, or, the author is using the mystery enshrouding Melchizedek as a symbol of how little we know about Jesus. Probably, the author is employing both to derive the dialectic necessary to talk about Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of Man, and his role as mediator between God and humanity.
Melchizedek and Jesus represent a refreshing, key point in theology: God is God. God did set up protocol for humans, but God, himself, is not bound to it. (Likewise, it’s humorous that we refer to the miracles of Jesus—they aren’t miracles if he is God.) God reveals a lot about himself in the Scriptures; story after story we learn that God is good, powerful and personal, that he loves justice, mercy and obedience, and abhors injustice and idolatry. He reveals Jesus to be his son and the one who rescues us from ourselves and sin. In the story of Melchizedek, there is protocol for priests to be in Aaron’s line, but there is room for an outlier; God uses an oath in lieu of the covenant. But even the outliers function as revelation of who God is. God is holy and other.
The early church referred to thinking about all that we don’t know about God as negative theology (what God has revealed about himself is positive theology). Gregory of Nyssa preached, “And yet, as the great John says: ‘No one has seen God at any time.’ And the sublime mind of Paul confirms this opinion when he says that ‘no one has seen or can see God’. God is the slippery steep crag which yields no footholds for our imagination. Moses too, in his teaching, declares that God is so inaccessible that our mind cannot approach him.”
Jesus is far more than any analogy we can draw. Priestly talk is a reminder of the absolute holiness of God… and our sin. We aren’t worthy of approaching God, but Jesus came in order to advocate for us.
Melchizedek is a fascinating, mysterious figure, a priest, who fits somewhere outside of expectation and protocol. We know very little details about his life, but the author of Hebrews uses him as an archetype for Christ’s role as high priest. Either author’s contemporaries were more familiar with Melchizedek than modern Bible readers, and a reference to him functioned as a reference to Abraham Lincoln in our culture, or, the author is using the mystery enshrouding Melchizedek as a symbol of how little we know about Jesus. Probably, the author is employing both to derive the dialectic necessary to talk about Jesus, the Son of God and the Son of Man, and his role as mediator between God and humanity.
Melchizedek and Jesus represent a refreshing, key point in theology: God is God. God did set up protocol for humans, but God, himself, is not bound to it. (Likewise, it’s humorous that we refer to the miracles of Jesus—they aren’t miracles if he is God.) God reveals a lot about himself in the Scriptures; story after story we learn that God is good, powerful and personal, that he loves justice, mercy and obedience, and abhors injustice and idolatry. He reveals Jesus to be his son and the one who rescues us from ourselves and sin. In the story of Melchizedek, there is protocol for priests to be in Aaron’s line, but there is room for an outlier; God uses an oath in lieu of the covenant. But even the outliers function as revelation of who God is. God is holy and other.
The early church referred to thinking about all that we don’t know about God as negative theology (what God has revealed about himself is positive theology). Gregory of Nyssa preached, “And yet, as the great John says: ‘No one has seen God at any time.’ And the sublime mind of Paul confirms this opinion when he says that ‘no one has seen or can see God’. God is the slippery steep crag which yields no footholds for our imagination. Moses too, in his teaching, declares that God is so inaccessible that our mind cannot approach him.”
Jesus is far more than any analogy we can draw. Priestly talk is a reminder of the absolute holiness of God… and our sin. We aren’t worthy of approaching God, but Jesus came in order to advocate for us.
Friday, November 6, 2009
approved books
Two weeks ago, I got reprimanded for reading a novel that was too mature for my students and was forced to quit after chapter 9 of 19 chapters. I was a little miffed because the principal hadn't even read the book; she just overheard a pretty rough section. I'm averse to any censorship; perhaps, I'm a little too out there. But, after the "cell phone" incident, I'm sticking with my instincts.
Today, I scavenged for novel sets in different Language Arts classrooms, and in a sixth grade classroom closet, I hit jackpot: The Hobbit, The Phantom Tollbooth and A Day No Pigs Would Die. So, now I'm going to sketch out time lines. And, for teaching poetry I think I'm going to read one of Shakespeare's histories: either Julius Caesar or one of the Henry IVs.
This is the part of the job I like.
Today, I scavenged for novel sets in different Language Arts classrooms, and in a sixth grade classroom closet, I hit jackpot: The Hobbit, The Phantom Tollbooth and A Day No Pigs Would Die. So, now I'm going to sketch out time lines. And, for teaching poetry I think I'm going to read one of Shakespeare's histories: either Julius Caesar or one of the Henry IVs.
This is the part of the job I like.
another one
This week has been a doozy. So much work, ye gods. I stayed till seven most days and brought stuff home. The teachers at my school were laughing about how the administration is trying to get us to hate our jobs. They put manditory training (in stuff I'll never use in my classroom) during our planning, faculty meetings and parent conferences all in the same week, which was the week after report card grades were due. Plus, in my lateral entry class, we had to read 4 chapters (200 pages) instead of the usual two, do a four hour observation of a young childcare and write a five page paper. Then, during this hoopla, I wrote a meditation on a Scripture verse-- I wrote I Kings 18 when I was supposed to write on II Kings 19. So close, yet so far away.
Meanwhile, during yesterday's planning, my teammate confiscated a student's cellphone. After the child said, "Don't check it. I'll get in so much trouble!", we looked through the texts and pictures and found plenty of things that would be disturbing on a 30 year old's cellphone let alone a 12 year olds: propositions for sex, nude photos, etc. But, maybe we'll get the girl the help she needs. And, during the parent conferences I found out a student's mother served a 7 year prison sentence for abusing our student and his brother-- that's why they can't have their picture published on the website or in the newspaper. The mother has tried to kidnap them twice. When I left last night, I was drained. The three teachers on my team had cried yesterday, including me. Sometimes, teaching grammar is the least of my problems. Kyrios eleison.
In I Kings (just as in Judges), we’re watching a downward spiral in leadership. Ahab was the worst in the lineup of bad kings. He married Jezebel, who converted his kingdom into a completely pagan one replete with assassinating the LORD's prophets, installing Baal and Asherah prophets and idols, and rejecting the justice required by The LORD. Ahab’s rejection of The LORD is reminiscent of the prodigal son in the parable.
In I Kings 17, the LORD decides to let the Northern Kingdom experience the logical consequence of their disobedience. He takes off the training wheels and lets them experience the results of misplaced faith in a god with no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no heart to love, and no right arm with which to act.
Yahweh calls Elijah to tell Ahab that there will be no rain, the symbol of blessing throughout the Old Testament, until Yahweh decides there will be. Ahab’s reaction is to order the execution of Yahweh’s prophets. The drought causing extreme famine in the land might cause most kings to repent and beg forgiveness of Yahweh in order to save his people. No, Ahab hunts for Elijah without success. Over two years later, Yahweh sends Elijah back to announce that he has decided it will rain.
But, first there is a show down between the 450 Baal prophets and Elijah. Elijah taunts the prophets (“Where’s your god ... is he using the bathroom ... is that why he isn’t answering you”). Somehow, it isn’t shocking that golden calf was unresponsive to their pleas. Whereas, Elijah prays, “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again (36b-38).”
The LORD answered Elijah’s prayer: “Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. When the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!”
Yahweh called Elijah to a hard duty, Elijah chose obedience and God was faithful to him. Ahab had equal opportunity to worship God and access to his grace, but continually refused and with each disobedient act his heart was as hard as the idols he worshipped.
Meanwhile, during yesterday's planning, my teammate confiscated a student's cellphone. After the child said, "Don't check it. I'll get in so much trouble!", we looked through the texts and pictures and found plenty of things that would be disturbing on a 30 year old's cellphone let alone a 12 year olds: propositions for sex, nude photos, etc. But, maybe we'll get the girl the help she needs. And, during the parent conferences I found out a student's mother served a 7 year prison sentence for abusing our student and his brother-- that's why they can't have their picture published on the website or in the newspaper. The mother has tried to kidnap them twice. When I left last night, I was drained. The three teachers on my team had cried yesterday, including me. Sometimes, teaching grammar is the least of my problems. Kyrios eleison.
In I Kings (just as in Judges), we’re watching a downward spiral in leadership. Ahab was the worst in the lineup of bad kings. He married Jezebel, who converted his kingdom into a completely pagan one replete with assassinating the LORD's prophets, installing Baal and Asherah prophets and idols, and rejecting the justice required by The LORD. Ahab’s rejection of The LORD is reminiscent of the prodigal son in the parable.
In I Kings 17, the LORD decides to let the Northern Kingdom experience the logical consequence of their disobedience. He takes off the training wheels and lets them experience the results of misplaced faith in a god with no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no heart to love, and no right arm with which to act.
Yahweh calls Elijah to tell Ahab that there will be no rain, the symbol of blessing throughout the Old Testament, until Yahweh decides there will be. Ahab’s reaction is to order the execution of Yahweh’s prophets. The drought causing extreme famine in the land might cause most kings to repent and beg forgiveness of Yahweh in order to save his people. No, Ahab hunts for Elijah without success. Over two years later, Yahweh sends Elijah back to announce that he has decided it will rain.
But, first there is a show down between the 450 Baal prophets and Elijah. Elijah taunts the prophets (“Where’s your god ... is he using the bathroom ... is that why he isn’t answering you”). Somehow, it isn’t shocking that golden calf was unresponsive to their pleas. Whereas, Elijah prays, “O Lord, God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel, let it be known today that you are God in Israel and that I am your servant and have done all these things at your command. Answer me, O Lord, answer me, so these people will know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you are turning their hearts back again (36b-38).”
The LORD answered Elijah’s prayer: “Then the fire of the Lord fell and burned up the sacrifice and burned up the sacrifice, the wood, the stones and the soil, and also licked up the water in the trench. When the people saw this, they fell prostrate and cried, “The Lord—he is God! The Lord—he is God!”
Yahweh called Elijah to a hard duty, Elijah chose obedience and God was faithful to him. Ahab had equal opportunity to worship God and access to his grace, but continually refused and with each disobedient act his heart was as hard as the idols he worshipped.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)